Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against an order dismissing: (i) his application to quash the decision of the inspector, appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, to dismiss his appeal against the second respondent local authority's refusal to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of a site; and (ii) his appeal against the inspector's decision to dismiss his appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the authority in respect of the site and to uphold the notice with variations. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that two different versions of a plan had been produced by the appellant and by the authority before the inspector. Extrinsic evidence had plainly been admissible to resolve the factual issue as to which of the two plans had been referred to in the planning permission. As to the enforcement notice, there had been a legally defective variation notice which the authority had had the power to and had withdrawn and corrected before the appeal had been decided by the judge. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. A wall dividing the claimants' and the defendants' gardens collapsed. The claimants brought proceedings. The judge ordered, inter alia, that the parties owed to each other a measured duty of care in respect of the consequences attendant upon the collapse of the wall and that, in respect of any engineering or other solution which might be devised to deal with the consequences, the contribution of the defendants was to be a rateable proportion of the cost of such solution. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendants' appeal, held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been entitled to have found that there had been measured duties of care on both sides, but it had not been just and reasonable to have imposed on the defendants a liability to contribute to the cost of some unspecified engineering solution. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant retained the defendant solicitors' firm in relation to a property transaction. Matters did not go well for the claimant and he brought a claim in negligence against the defendant alleging breach of duty of care. The defendant denied the allegation. The Queen's Bench found that the claimant had failed to prove any breach of duty on the part of the defendant in relation to any of the grounds alleged against it and so the claim failed in its entirety. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The mother had brought her children to the United Kingdom from Ireland and the father had issued proceedings for their return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The judge, having noted the children's desire not to return to Ireland, was not satisfied that the children's views could properly have been said to have amounted to a clear objection in Convention terms. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the gateway stage should be confined to a straightforward and fairly robust examination of whether the simple terms of the Convention were satisfied, in that the child objected to being returned, and had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views. In particular, the approach to the gateway stage set out in Re T (abduction: child's objections to return)[2000] 2 FCR 159 should be abandoned. Further, guidance was given on the procedure to be followed when a child applied, for the first time, to be added as a party at the appeal stage. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The local authority applied for a secure accommodation in respect of SS who was being keep in a secure unit. The Family Division noted that the restriction of liberty of a child was an extremely serious step, especially where the child had not committed any criminal offence, nor was alleged to have committed any criminal offence and the circumstances of SS's case did not warrant such an order. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The tenant rented a second floor flat from the landlord and injured himself after tripping on an uneven pathway that led from the door to the block of flats to the rubbish bins. The judge held that the landlord was not liable under the extended covenant implied into the tenancy by s 11(1A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the pathway could properly be described as the exterior of the front hall, over which the landlord had a legal easement and, accordingly, in principle, the extended covenant applied. 

Contract – Loan agreement. The defendant entered into a number of financing arrangements with a consortium of banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), concerning the purchase of a property in Madrid. The rights and obligations under a junior loan, an upside fee agreement (UFA) and a personal loan had been transferred from RBS to the claimants. The defendant defaulted on the personal loan. The claimants claimed the principal sum of €105,201,095.89, to which they claimed to be entitled as a fee due under the UFA, plus interest. The Commercial Court held that a 'payment event' had occurred, pursuant to the events of default under the agreement. Further, a clause in the agreement allowing for the fee, was not unenforceable as a penalty or disguised penalty. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The parties contracted regarding the provision of a loan. A dispute arose and they sought to arbitrate. Concerns were raised as to the impartiality of the arbitrator, Z, and the claimants made an application to have Z removed as arbitrator. In allowing the application, the Commercial Court held that the connections and actions of Z raised justifiable doubts as to his ability to act impartially. Further, the claimants had not lost their entitlement to raise doubts about Z. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of imprisonment of seven years for offences including money laundering. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it had not been open to the appellant to argue that the forum bar in s 19B of the Extradition Act 2003 applied. Further, there had been no abuse of process nor, having rejected new evidence, disproportionate interference with his and his wife's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company contracted to provide devices to the defendant company, British Gas, to reduce water consumption. A dispute arose as to the amount to which the claimant was entitled, and the defendant sought summary judgment and/or to strike out the claim. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, it would not be appropriate to decide the relevant issues without a detailed consideration that was not suitable for determination on a summary application.